Argument from Islamic Jurisprudence

country in accordance with the objectives presented by the group. Before British rule, India was a Dar al-Islam, but afterward, the infidels took control of this Dar alIslam and transformed it into a Dar al-Kufr. Regarding such a situation, the verdict of the jurists is that it is obligatory for Muslims to end this infidel occupation and restore the country to being a Dar al-Islam. This argument contains two mistakes. First, it tries to generalize a specific and temporary ruling, which clearly applies only to reclaiming a usurped Dar alIslam. This matter relates to a specific legal situation, while we are discussing a broad and universal issue. The legal point simply shows what Muslims should do if that particular situation occurs. However, the issue we are examining is what Muslims should do in every situation. The individual could have easily understood this point if they had considered that their argument, if valid, only justifies a political goal for Muslims in India. But this argument does not justify adopting such a political goal in many other countries that, from a legal perspective, have never been considered a “Dar al-Islam.” Yet, your claim is that what you call the mission of Islam should be the singular mission of all Muslims worldwide. The second mistake is that a political ruling has been used to argue about a theoretical issue. A political